Adams v. Poupard
| Decision Date | 27 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 2:23-cv-47 |
| Parties | DAVID ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. JAY POUPARD et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 4.)
This case is presently before the Court for preliminary review under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). However, the Court's preliminary review of Plaintiff's complaint under the PLRA has brought to light Plaintiff's attempt to join unrelated claims against the defendants into a single lawsuit. Under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may at any time with or without motion, add or drop a party for misjoinder or nonjoinder. Fed.R.Civ.P. 21. For the reasons set forth below the Court will drop as misjoined Defendants Horrocks, Harju, Beaudoin, Coppler, Snyder, Osier, and Beesley from this suit. The Court will dismiss Plaintiff's claims against these Defendants without prejudice.
With regard to Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Paakola, Capello, Sullivan, Mattila, Turunen, Hewson, Watt, Gagnon, Smith, Christoff, Hammel, Taskila, Russell, and Poupard, under the PLRA, the Court is required to dismiss any inmate action brought under federal law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court must read Plaintiff's pro se complaint indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiff's allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Applying these standards, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's complaint against Defendants Hammel, Russell, and Poupard for failure to state a claim. The Court will also dismiss, for failure to state a claim, Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim related to the denial of deodorant; First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Paakola, Capello, Mattila, Turunen, Hewson, Smith, Christoff, and Taskila; First Amendment claims for interference with Plaintiff's access to the courts; Fourteenth Amendment due process claims; and all official capacity claims. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Paakola, Capello, Sullivan, Mattila, Turunen, Hewson, Watt, Gagnon, Smith, Christoff, and Taskila related to the provision of contaminated food, and his First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Sullivan, Watt, and Gagnon remain in the case.
Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Baraga Correctional Facility (AMF) in Baraga, Baraga County, Michigan. The events about which he complains occurred at that facility. Plaintiff sues twenty-one Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff sues Michigan State Police Lieutenant Commander Jay Poupard, AMF Warden Kris Taskila, MDOC Grievance Section Manager Richard Russell, AMF Assistant Deputy Warden R. Horrocks, Mental Health Professional Dale Harju, Mental Health Professional Mike Beaudoin, Step 1 & 2 Grievance Coordinator T. Hamel, “Propertyman” Unknown Coppler, Chaplain Unknown Snyder, Correctional Officer Unknown Hewson, Correctional Officer Unknown Watt, Sergeant Unknown Sullivan, MDOC Mental Health Service Director Tom Osier, Correctional Officer Unknown Paakola, Correctional Officer Paul Capello, Correctional Officer Unknown Smith, Correctional Officer Unknown Mattila, Correctional Officer Unknown Christoff, Correctional Officer Unknown Turunen, Correctional Officer N. Beesley, and Correctional Officer Unknown Gagnon.
Plaintiff alleges that, on January 18, 2022, and on several occasions in March and April 2022, Defendant Paakola “maliciously & sadistically targeted [Plaintiff] with an ‘injuriously rancid-contaminated' food,” causing Plaintiff to burn and itch. (ECF No. 1, PageID.8, 33, 38, 42, 48.) Plaintiff alleges that, on many of these occasions, Defendant Paakola made comments such as, “The burn and itch is real,” (id., PageID.18), “Adams[,] if you can[']t stand the burning & itching then kill yourself or starve until we transfer you but your grievances obviously can[']t help you,” (id., PageID.33), and “I bet [you're] going to itch & burn after eating this meal or you can just starve yourself[,] Adams,” (id., PageID.37). Plaintiff also makes similar allegations against Defendants Capello, Sullivan, Mattila, Turunen, Hewson, Watt, Gagnon, Smith, and Christoff. He alleges that these Defendants each served Plaintiff “‘injurious rancid-contaminated' food,” throughout March and April 2022, and made comments indicating that they were providing Plaintiff with contaminated food with either the knowledge or purpose of causing Plaintiff pain. (Id., PageID.14, 15, 18, 20-26, 31-50.)
Plaintiff reported these incidents of contaminated food to Defendant Hammel, but Defendant Hammel did not respond. (Id., PageID.14, 15, 18, 20- 26, 31-50.) Plaintiff also reported some of these incidents to Defendants Taskila and Russell; however, Defendants Taskila and Russell did not correct the problem. (Id., PageID.8, 14, 15, 27.) On February 7, 2022, Plaintiff forwarded a complaint to Defendant Poupard of the Michigan State Police, regarding four correctional officers, including Defendant Turunen, who had “targeted the plaintiff with the ‘injurious rancid-contaminated' food, causing him ‘serious physical injury.” (Id., PageID.10.) Defendant Poupard did not respond. (Id.)
In addition to Plaintiff's allegations of “injurious rancid-contaminated food,” Plaintiff alleges that, on February 19, 2022, Defendant Sullivan denied Plaintiff's phone access after Plaintiff filed an unidentified grievance against one of Defendant Sullivan's colleagues. (Id., PageID.11.) Defendant Sullivan stated: “I heard you were writing grievances Adams - so no phone, (for you), when I[']m down here.” (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges that, in the course of providing Plaintiff with contaminated food, Defendant Watt told Plaintiff, “Adams[,] as long as you're writing grievances and complaints you'll be burning and itching,” (id., PageID.20), and Defendant Gagnon stated, “Adams[,] you shouldn't have wrote [sic] that grievance against ‘Sullivan' - now deal with the pain.” (Id., PageID.22).
Plaintiff also alleges that he has suffered from clinical depression for years, but that staff do not accurately log Plaintiff's “hygientical [sic] behavior pattern” so as to hide the symptoms of Plaintiff's depression and deny Plaintiff mental health treatment. (Id., PageID.27-28.) In December 2021, Plaintiff asked Defendant Harju for “psychiatric medicative treatment,” but Defendant Harju told Plaintiff to “be patient waiting on a response.” (Id., PageID.28.) On March 23, 2022, in response to Plaintiff's request for treatment, Defendant Harju stated, “Adams[,] [you're] a bug, we all know you need meds but [you're] being punished.” (Id.) When Plaintiff further pleaded with Defendant Harju, Defendant Harju replied, (Id.) Plaintiff reported the situation to Defendant Beaudoin, (id., PageID.29), but Defendant Beaudoin denied Plaintiff's grievance, (ECF No. 1-2, PageID.119).
Defendant Beaudoin also told Plaintiff that Plaintiff would not get medication for his depression, that Plaintiff was being punished, and that Plaintiff should stop writing grievances if he does not want his food tampered with. (ECF No. 1, PageID.29-30.) Plaintiff appealed the denial of his grievance; however, Defendant Osier denied the same. (Id., PagelD.30-31; ECF No. 1-2, PageID.120, 122.)
On June 10, 2022, Defendant Beesley conducted a strip search of Plaintiff; however, Plaintiff did not comply when asked to bend over and spread his buttocks. (ECF No. 1, PageID.52.) Defendant Beesley requested authorization from Defendant Horrocks to use “chemical weapons” against Plaintiff. (Id., PageID.53.) Defendant Horrocks agreed, allowing Defendant Beesley to spray Plaintiff “from head to feet.” (Id.) Defendant Coppler then denied Plaintiff his property, “so that he would not have access to his medical therapeutic cre[am] and medical shampoo,” which Plaintiff claims would have provided relief. (Id., PageID.53-56.) The kite responses attached to Plaintiff's complaint indicate that healthcare staff had discontinued Plaintiff's orders for medicated cream and shampoo. (ECF No. 1-6, PageID.131.)
Plaintiff further claims that he was denied access to the AMF law library for eight months while in solitary confinement. (Id., PageID.58.) He was also denied legal photocopies, a copy of an injunction related to “100% organic food,” and the ability to purchase a “durable financial power of attorney” form. (Id., PageID.59-60.) Plaintiff reported his complaints to Defendants Horrocks and Taskila, but they found “no problem with what Plaintiff [was] being subject[ed] to.” (Id., PageID.60.)
Between May 31, 2022, and June 23, 2022, non-party “Staffm[a]n” Lanctot incorrectly processed Plaintiff's request for legal photocopies, resulting in a greater charge than requested. (Id., PageID.61.) Defendant Snyder refused to “correct the obvious wrong.” (Id.) Plaintiff reported this to Defendants Horrocks and Taskila, but they did not refund Plaintiff the copying charges. (Id., PageID.62.)
Despite multiple requests, Defendant Coppler denied Plaintiff's requests for deodorant from December 1, 2021, until June 10 2022. (Id....
To continue reading
Request your trial